Talk:Multitude (philosophy)

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Spinoza's use of the term goes back at least to Hobbes (“Citizens, when rebelling against the State, are the multitude against the people” Hobbes, 1642, XII, 8), so calling it 'Spinoza's term' is somewhat misleading.

It goes further back: Hardt & Negri cite William of Ockham as saying Ecclesia est multitudo fidellum ("the Church is the multitude of the faithful"). Qwertyus 12:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

multitude indeed goes much further back than spinoza

i agree with the comment made above. . .i was motivated to make this comment here to express the same sentiment. since the lengthy pedigree of the concept of multitude has already been mentioned, i will just comment here that for negri, the work of machiavelli on the concept of the multitude is, if not as crucial to him as spinoza's, of an extremely important nature to his work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dykun (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

correct, but please add to history rather than take whole history section out

In fact the concept of multitude can be traced back at least to several Stoic writers. So indeed it is not a Spinozian concept. However, I think the history of the concept (in which the Hobbes-Spinoza duality plays an important role) adds a informative background to the contemporary use and this is why I put back the history section that was taken out as a whole. Please expand upon the history, rather than take it out again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiel (User talk:Wiel) • 22 July 2007.

This is bonkers

"Multitude is a political term first used by Machiavelli" - er, no. It's a word for the masses used at least as early as the first book of the Hebrew Bible. As it stands, this article is bonkers. It either needs editing by somebody who can make clear the article is about a political system; or it needs deleting. Croakfoods (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a clear definition of the multitude

The opening passage only describes the multitude as a "political term". If somebody could explain what it generally refers to in the opening passage, the whole text would be easier to read for someone who is not familiar with the concept.

New user attempting to correct details

Hi. Caveat: no idea what I'm doing. I'm going to make a few changes to the start of the section, but I think someone with more skill with wikipedia than I should make some general corrections. The issue with the start of this article is that the term 'multitude' gains certain qualities with the work of Machiavelli that is distinct from the uses of the term by the Stoics or the Bible. I am unfamiliar with these uses of the term, and cannot elaborate on them very much. This would indicate to me that the Italian Marxist discussions of the multitude, including the use of the term in immanent philosophies, is one that has to be separated from the broader use of the word. Such clarification will need to be performed by someone else. 128.250.0.78 (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The multitude is used as a term and implied as a concept throughout Spinoza's work"

This is incorrect...Spinoza only uses multitude in the Political Treatise. The term doesn't even appear in the Theological-Political Treates, where he uses vulgas - people, masses... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbozbj (talk • contribs) 18:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Multitude. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Redirection

Hi folks, I have gone ahead and renamed this page to 'Multitude (Philosophy)'. I think it is fairly obvious that this page is not discussing the term multitude as a whole—e.g. etymologically and/or historically speaking—but only in part: that of its relation to political philosophy (see edit history for further explanation). To be clear, I am fairly new to editing, so the transition may not have been seamless. Will be looking over the page to make sure all links, citations, etc. have migrated successfully. Cheers! OinopaPonton (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was too hasty a move without discussion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article stinks, like so many Wikipedia articles, but if it's as close as possible to a primary topic for the term "multitude", then it's best to leave the title at Multitude. None of the other articles at Multitude (disambiguation) come anywhere close to rivaling prominence of the topic discussed in this article, with or without parenthetical disambiguation. Unless you plan to create a new article on a general concept of multitude that is more than a mere dictionary definition, it's rather pointless busywork. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. As mentioned, quite new to editing and still very much learning the ropes. If you truly think letting the title remain "Multitude" is the best option, I'm happy to defer to your judgement! Having said that, I don't quite agree that the change is pointless busywork. Otherwise, you wouldn't have taken the time to give your (appreciated) input. Leaving the title as is implies that the article is something that it simply is not: an overview of the general concept.

As you rightly mention, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nor is it a place, however, where easily resolvable ambiguity need be left unchecked. At least personally—and again this is coming from limited experience—it seems better to leave the term "multitude" primary-topic-less (Wikipedia ≠ dictionary) than to keep confusing people. OinopaPonton (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability / salvageability

Hi @Andrew Lancaster. I wondered what your thoughts were about the article, if any, other than what you've tagged? I would not be exactly happy to work on this, but I could maybe take a series of slow jabs at it over time to try to save it. It could be more specifically titled "Multitude (political philosophy)". I think it is worth keeping, somewhat analogous to (perhaps modeled on) the conatus entry, because at least Spinoza and Hobbes use it technically in their political philosophy.

I'm kind of rusty on these things, and you probably already know much or at least some of this.

I remember that Warren Montag and Étienne Balibar have done some work on this concept. As I look at more recent scholarship, Ericka Tucker has worked on it some (she contributed a chapter on "Multitude" to Spinoza: Basic Concepts). All typically use it in historically contextualizing and interpreting Spinoza's mature political thinking in the TP (first he uses "vulgus" in the Ethics and TTP, but they are more slightly distinct than truly separate concepts).

Tucker writes clearly about its origins in Spinoza's engagement with Hobbes in De Cive, partly through de la Court's response to Hobbes in La Balance Politique, where Hobbes uses it less consistently but still technically as an aggregate or mass of individuals in constant motion by contrast to the more pre-political, social formation ("people") of the "Aristotelians" like Grotius. Mikko Jakonen has written an entire book on Hobbes's concept of the multitude. Jakonen contextualizes it well within his mechanical materialism, appreciates the importance of motion within the scientific context, engages some with Hardt/Negri, Filippo del Lucchese, Omar Astorga, and Gordon Hull.

Jakonen also has a rather limited but serviceable history of the concept within biblical, ancient, classical, and other early modern contexts (there's Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Polybius, Cicero, Machiavelli. There is a book on medieval crowds by Shane Bobrycki that might be useful, probably more for the historical context. MONTENSEM (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't really know this secondary literature. The article made me worried though, because I really wonder if these diverse ideas are all about the same thing (beyond just obvious everyday stuff), or are we just sticking them together because they are talking about similar things? To be clear, it is quite possible that there is no problem here, but in that case the article needs to connect some more dots.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'll see if I can connect some dots. I don't usually enjoy this conceptual stuff very much, but I am a little familiar with it from some time ago. I think it is now entrenched as a somewhat technical term at least in Spinoza and more recently, maybe to a lesser extent or maybe more ambitiously than in fact systematically, in Hobbes. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]